If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

no one responded since i made my last post in it. granted it was to a less informed post because i just wanted to jump onto something recent, i should go back and respond to that one guys posts whose argument was basically 'it was so bad to begin with gains of mao and stalin werent impressive lol'. i tried responding to it once before but it got frustrating so i stopped. i mean what kind of argument is that(ps ta used to make it all the time).

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

Before we get started, I'd just like to clarify that I don't SUPPORT Ron Paul, I just like him the best out of all the candidates, and they all suck. And what do you want me to do exactly? Just like, ask me questions and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Before we get started, I'd just like to clarify that I don't SUPPORT Ron Paul, I just like him the best out of all the candidates, and they all suck. And what do you want me to do exactly? Just like, ask me questions and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

buckweat thats not how it works! you say you're a conservative, thus you believe conservative things. what are some of your most conservative conviction and why do you hold them?

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

Well, I'm not socially conservative at all. But economically, I believe in corporate individualism and the profit motive. this is fucking hard I need like an issue by issue thing to go off of, fuck. hmm. I believe in trickle-down economics.

Because people are inherently greedy. When CEO's and big companies have less money, they're still going to keep as much as they would have before to themselves. Granted, when they get more, they keep more, but there's no need for layoffs and they can hire more people.

Because people are inherently greedy. When CEO's and big companies have less money, they're still going to keep as much as they would have before to themselves. Granted, when they get more, they keep more, but there's no need for layoffs and they can hire more people.

Because people are inherently greedy. When CEO's and big companies have less money, they're still going to keep as much as they would have before to themselves. Granted, when they get more, they keep more, but there's no need for layoffs and they can hire more people.

im not sure what this post means.

trickle down economics: if rich people have more money they will hire more/spend more and the money will reverberate through the economy and everyone will be wealthier because of it.

this is can actually be shown to be factually incorrect because for the past couple decades the US has followed economic policies consistent with the trickle down philosophy. the result was that rich people do indeed now have more money than they used to. but wait, average wages in the US have stagnated. the idea of trickle down was that as the very rich get more money, wages will rise throughout the economy. this hasnt happened.

trickle down was actually tried and reality proved it REALLY does not work.

the only thing that will cause companies to hire more people is increased demand for them to expand production. rich people having more money doesnt really increase demand in the real economy very much, it does increase demand for things such as, say, stocks or exotic financial instruments, or it just sits in a bank account and will be bequeathed to their no good rich kid children when they die. if a company suddenly gets a lot more money they're not going to hire more people, they're going to pay dividends or buy back outstanding stock which just helps board members, major investors and officers.

the only thing which will make a company want to hire more people is increased demand for their product. which can be accomplished by regular people having more money. which can be accomplished by government programs doing things like: making health care more affordable, making education more affordable, or making education better and more efficient so more people can get jobs and obtain disposable income. making strides in any of those areas requires, of course first of all better administration but also: more funding for those programs. funding has to come from somewhere and naturally it should come from the people with the most ability to pay.

for those reasons and many more trickle down economics HASNT WORKED and the rich should pay higher taxes.

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

This is going to be a shitty debate because I agree with everything you just said. And Solly I have no socially conservative policies. And in retrospect, trickle down economics doesn't really fit into objectivism, which is what I'd say I most identify with. Also, I'm in strong favor of a flat tax.

You do realize any decent flat tax on the middle and upper classes would make amost everyone in the lower class broke. If lowered to a level where they could pay it, the revenue would be laughably small.

people of course have a tendency to want more things but the earliest human societies were highly cooperative so this tendency obviously does not preclude cooperation on a societal scale so eat a dick with this greed mess

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.